Phoenecians are of course best represented with Carthage, I agree. Any way, I suggested this elsewhere on this forum, but how about two alternative expansion packs: "0 A.D.: Silk Road" - Including Indo-Eurasian and Near Eastern factions: Persians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Northern Indians, Tocharians, etc. "0 A.D.: Far East" - This can be the traditional "Far Eastern" flair with factions including: China, Koreas, Early Japan, Yuezhi, Mongol tribes, etc. What do you all think?

There is one difficulty of course: The Eastern Civilizations had hardly any contact with the more Western ones. That is: the Indo-Eurasian factions (Scythians, Indians, etc.) were politically disjoint from the Eastern cultures (due to Himalayas, Pamirs, Tien Shan, but mostly the Himalayas). Culturally, the story was otherwise... So how is this for another idea: "0 A.D.: Silk Road" - This will be everything Indo-Eurasian: Persians, Near-East, Scythians, Indians, Sarmatians, everyone. "0 A.D.: Far East" - The Far East. Not only developmental warfare, but even intra-cultural warfare (Han against Han, political wars, etc.)

In case of mods or expansion beyond civilizations around Rome: I think this idea has been suggested before actually... an Eastern 0 A.D. with everything form Buddha (non-violence?) in the 400s BC to the Song dynasty. I can imagine the involved factions to be: Sarmatians, Scythians, Tocharians, Indians (Northern, Southern), Yuezhi, Early Mongols, China, Korean kingdoms (Three Kingdoms of Korea), Early Japan, heck even give the mod a regular 0 A.D. flair with the inclusion of the various Persian factions (with new an modified units for the various new terrains). What do you guys think? -SR

Sure, definitely... time period is crucial to give accurate impressions of history! But sticking strictly to the "turn of the era" I think Achaemenids would also be vastly outdated (their civilization ended in 300s BC with Alexander). Seleucids and Parthians were the primary representatives of the Persian culture as of first century AD. -SR

Here is a link to a really nice Iranian website which re-envisions Achaemenid Persian warriors (scroll through the whole page to see all the diagrams). http://www.iranchamber.com/history/achaeme...emenid_army.php

Having read some of the articles on Persian history, I am very impressed by some of the research that goes into development of the different factions. I was hoping 0 A.D. would make an effort to steer away from stereotypes (particularly that relating to the Arab-invariance complex) and in deed you do. However, I would like to point out that some of the information is somewhat outdated. The Persian world does not freeze after Alexander's invasion and the fall of the Achaemenid empire. By 1 B.C. already the Seleucid (Graeo-Persian) empire was reigning over land stretching from the Near East to modern day Afghanistan (where it met with the Graeco-Indian/Graeco-Buddhist cultures). Not to mention the Parthians were also uniting. The Greek influence is apparent in the helmet-craft of the Parthian warrior from Nysa: Wiki Commons Various Graeco-Armenian and Graeco-Persian headdress styles: Wiki Commons In fact, the skip to the Sassanids does not happen until the 3rd century CE. The Persian armies of course included many contingents from the various ethnic group (Near Eastern, Middle Eastern, and previously even Egyptian/Libyan) in the empire. However, the phalanxes of the Seleucids were invariably Graeco-Persian. Archers, elephants from the east supplemented the armies. Among the Sassanid armies the famous Persian light cavalries were vastly men from the warrior caste of Persians proper who were trained from youth for this purpose. As conflicts with Rome went on, the Persians even adapted many Western techniques of warfare and siege. Note on elephants: they were used in war to strike fear and also to scare those playing dead in the carnage to attempt to flee (at which point they were killed). Also: Though ancient Persia occupied areas that are now associated with Arabic-speaking countries, the "Arab" world was for a large part disjoint from the Persian and Near Eastern world at this point in time. Then again, at that time the people we in modern times call northern/Near Eastern Arabs were probably self-identifying as Aramaean, Judaean, etc. -SR